French court orders Twitter to identify racist and anti-Semitic users

Well I sure am glad that I don't live in Europe. I understand that different countries have different views on freedoms, and it's up to the people in those countries to change it if they see fit. But I can't imagine what it must be like to live in a country where you have to worry about every little thing that you say, or where one stupid comment (racist, homophobic or otherwise) could mean criminal charges against you.

The reason for restricted speech about certain things in the EU is that words shape thoughts, and speech communicates words. Unacceptable thoughts (those designed to spread hate and hurt other people) are things that those in charge have decided that they don't want people spreading, so they make laws that outlaw the usage of speech that is solely for propagating hatred or harming another. The same words in a different situation may not be considered hate or harmful.

In the US your speech is similarly restricted. The classic example is that your allowed to shout fire, however you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded cinema where it could cause a panic.

"On Thursday, the Grand Instance Court in Paris ordered Twitter to identify the authors of anti-semitic tweets by creating a mechanism (Google Translate) to alert French authorities to “illegal content,” on its French site “in a visible and easily-accessible [way].”"

Not quite true. Twitter will have to make available on their French version in a clear and accessible way a system for USERS (not authorities) to notify Twitter of crimes against humanity and for antisemitic / racial hate tweets.

Also of note that I found not clear was the anti-gay and racist hash tags were not covered by the disclosure ruling saying that there is not enough 'clarity / depth' for the comments to be illegal (a.k.a grey area)

If all of the users requested from this court are based in France (just because the tweets are in French doesn't make that so), then I wouldn't have much of a problem in this circumstance. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it at all, but that's unfortunately not up to me. I would love for Twitter to continue on with their stance of protecting anonyminity, it's just a very delicate situation that they're in.

Normally it's in good form to keep your opinions to yourself when speaking about another country's policies, but in this case we are talking about a basic human right (free speech) which is an inherent right that comes from their humanity, not their government. Their government may not see it that way, but that doesn't make it untrue (assuming you believe it to be true in the first place). So, it's okay to "have a problem" with this situation, even as an outsider.

Uh, I've never seen a Holocaust Believer being able to rationalize their belief with facts - merely threats, obfuscation, subject changing, innuendo, ad hominem and for the most part the ones I've seen prance around the subject of the Holocaust with ancillary anecdotes.

Perhaps this is a small generalization on my part, but I've partaken and watched such debates for about fifteen years. But I just love the way you generalize.Whenever some "survivor" is exposed as a fake (think Bernie Holstein, and the woman who cried wolf: Misha DeFonseca) the Holocaust Believer merely shrugs it off and finds some other "survivor" to make their point...so, in reality, it is the Holocaust Believer who one apparently cannot argue with because they will always stay steadfast with their belief.In actual fact: nothing can trounce their belief.

Best wishes,Kuensl

Tijger wrote:

k0nsl wrote:

I'm surprised they didn't ask to identify those "evil" deniers of the Holocaust (must capitalize the H, it's 'anti-Semitic' not to).

Sure, there probably exists true examples of hate speech but for the most part they use these laws to hunt down people with dissententing opinions.

Faithfully,-k0nsl

Utter BS, holocaust deniers are exactly the kind of people that can easily be countered with arguments yet that doesnt stop them from spreading their lies nor does it ever stop any racist. Arguments do not work with these people.

Well I sure am glad that I don't live in Europe. I understand that different countries have different views on freedoms, and it's up to the people in those countries to change it if they see fit. But I can't imagine what it must be like to live in a country where you have to worry about every little thing that you say, or where one stupid comment (racist, homophobic or otherwise) could mean criminal charges against you.

Also interesting to note from the linked aticle is Twitter tried to hide behind the bread American laws but the judge pointed to Twitter's 'Acceptable use' as stating the international users need to abide by their own laws.

If hate speech goes unchallenged it could become acceptable. That is unacceptable.

Then challenge it. The answer to bad speech is MORE speech - never less.

Otherwise, someone gets to decide what "hate" speech is. Is it speech against a race? a sexual orientation? ... a political viewpoint supporting gay rights? other political viewpoints? Crossing the line from banning true "hate" speech to oppressive censorship is far too easily done to take banning any kind of speech lightly, no matter how distasteful you may find it.

If hate speech goes unchallenged it could become acceptable. That is unacceptable.

Then challenge it. The answer to bad speech is MORE speech - never less.

Otherwise, someone gets to decide what "hate" speech is. Is it speech against a race? a sexual orientation? ... a political viewpoint supporting gay rights? other political viewpoints? Crossing the line from banning true "hate" speech to oppressive censorship is far too easily done to take banning any kind of speech lightly, no matter how distasteful you may find it.

That's why (in the uk anyway) the law judges your speech after you've said it but doesn't stop you saying it in the first place.

Uh, I've never seen a Holocaust Believer being able to rationalize their belief with facts - merely threats, obfuscation, subject changing, innuendo, ad hominem and for the most part the ones I've seen prance around the subject of the Holocaust with ancillary anecdotes.

Perhaps this is a small generalization on my part, but I've partaken and watched such debates for about fifteen years. But I just love the way you generalize.Whenever some "survivor" is exposed as a fake (think Bernie Holstein, and the woman who cried wolf: Misha DeFonseca) the Holocaust Believer merely shrugs it off and finds some other "survivor" to make their point...so, in reality, it is the Holocaust Believer who one apparently cannot argue with because they will always stay steadfast with their belief.In actual fact: nothing can trounce their belief.

Best wishes,Kuensl

Well, looky here. A real live Holocaust denier in our midst, who signed up just to leave his trail of filth all over this thread. Lovely.

The reason for restricted speech about certain things in the EU is that words shape thoughts, and speech communicates words. Unacceptable thoughts (those designed to spread hate and hurt other people) are things that those in charge have decided that they don't want people spreading, so they make laws that outlaw the usage of speech that is solely for propagating hatred or harming another. The same words in a different situation may not be considered hate or harmful.

In the US your speech is similarly restricted. The classic example is that your allowed to shout fire, however you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded cinema where it could cause a panic.

So your position is that the French and Germans (and any of the others with the onerous free speech restrictions) are so morally bankrupt that they will all turn Nazi if anyone suggests it?

Quote:

They think the same about us.

Good for them. If what they say has any truth then maybe changes will come. That's the point of free speech.

Uh, I've never seen a Holocaust Believer being able to rationalize their belief with facts - merely threats, obfuscation, subject changing, innuendo, ad hominem and for the most part the ones I've seen prance around the subject of the Holocaust with ancillary anecdotes.

Perhaps this is a small generalization on my part, but I've partaken and watched such debates for about fifteen years. But I just love the way you generalize.Whenever some "survivor" is exposed as a fake (think Bernie Holstein, and the woman who cried wolf: Misha DeFonseca) the Holocaust Believer merely shrugs it off and finds some other "survivor" to make their point...so, in reality, it is the Holocaust Believer who one apparently cannot argue with because they will always stay steadfast with their belief.In actual fact: nothing can trounce their belief.

Best wishes,Kuensl

Well, looky here. A real live Holocaust denier in our midst, who signed up just to leave his trail of filth all over this thread. Lovely.

Indeed. If you check his/her profile, there's a link to a blog that is mostly Holocaust denial and antisemitism.

It always surprises me to hear how backwards and ignorant most of Europe is with regards to free speech.

a lot of it has to do with WW2, they see racist remarks as the possible start of another hitler.

Possible unintentional Godwin, but a Godwin none the less. Time to close the thread.

it is the truth.

I'm french, and you cannot imagine HOW MUCH it is historically and politically charged.

In Germany it's worse, the geeky "godwin point" is ALIVE: nazism is still a very deep suffering, is politically controlled, to sell, use nazism propaganda/prop/imagery is legal worries.

The "godwin point" is NOT to be used to stop discussion and explanation. If you want to understand the roots of theses laws, the fear behind, you HAVE to discuss about the WW2, about the antisemitic past, about the FN (a french nationalist party) and yes, about nazism.

39-45 was not hollywood, the rise of fascism and nazism was not cute background, it's the reality still explaining a lot of Europe NOW.

France is about how hateful talk are NOT an opinion. hateful talk is NOT free expression, it's HATE. That, to be quick, the spirit of the law.

The France not simply says "shut up" (removing the offending text), it goes to prosecution.

-I don't think it's good idea and manageable to try prosecution or control of a private company as Twiiter, but it's the VERY reality of France. You have to discuss it.

by the way, it's a very modern country, I have 100mb/s fiber connexion (for $20 a month), and even Corsica (south island very far from Paris and the Tour Eiffel) got 20mb/s internet. no filtering. and yeah, Apple iTunes Store sell all hollywood movies in french and english dub.

So try to admit France is not isolated in whole debate your country also have about internet, freedom, modernity, communication and all. I would dare to say, it's even too much in France.

-by the way, internet companies don't have the right to protect their users' identities if the Justice ask for it because reasonable suspicion of an illegal conduct.

it is the SAME in United States of America. You have a very strong free expression protection yes and it could be one of the most important things of the USA, but for illegal conducts, well.. twitter, google, apple or facebook (neither Ars Technica) will not be allowed to protect your identity if the State has a legal reason to ask for it.

As someone who is gay--and I mean silk scarfs, ass-hugging pants, and basically all my clothes imported from Europe gay--and as someone who has hobbies that tend to be rather unfriendly to gays, like automotive racing and competition shooting, I have to say, I'd never identify as a "gaymer". It's a stupid bastard word and it's needless. Like other people are saying, I'm just a gamer (a hardcore gamer, even). My sexual and romantic inclinations only enter into it as far as interest in the rare games that do allow such things. And despite the fact that I'm pretty obviously gay, even in very "guy" activities, I rarely get much shit for it. I don't understand why there needs to be a support community for gay gamers. I can sort of understand why the Reddit group would want a place where they can discuss such things openly without opposition but don't really appreciate any attempt at distinction regardless. I'm also a furry but you don't see me identifying as a "gaymurr" because it's ridiculous.

On the other hand, being able to register trademarks for nonsense words in common parlance is also bullshit. I wonder if the trademark office would be stupid enough to let me register brony.

Umm, not to sound like an ass, but I think you commented on the wrong article

EDIT: To not derail the thread, I don't know how to think about this situation. There will always be assholes on the internet, but publicly prosecuting them and making Twitter take the blow if they protect their user's privacy? damn, that's rough. Twitter is now between a rock and a hard place because:

a) If twitter complies, a lot of people will scream bloody murder on their privacyb) if he doesn't, well, the fines are described on the article.

Maybe I'm missing something here, does France has regulations where being a bigot gives you jail/fine?

If hate speech goes unchallenged it could become acceptable. That is unacceptable.

In my opinion that is one of the problems of limiting speech. In other words if it's limited, whether by law or social norms, then it's limited for everybody. Thus, even if one speaks out about the offensive speech, then one is committing the same offense and can be charged under the same statutes.

For example, person A puts up a website touting the benefits of white supremacy, which we can all agree is offensive and considered hate speech against various groups. Person B as a response puts out a website decrying person As website and its affiliations, which we can all agree is appropriate and offers an opposing view. However, even though every one agrees that the first website is offensive, and the second website is more open-minded, to person A the second website is hate speech against their beliefs.

This is why the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is so important to the American society. The best way to combat offensive speech is by more speech that counters the offensive speech and ensures that those ideas are not acceptable to society as a whole.

Twitter was right to hold back, but now that the French courts have ruled against them they can only comply if they want to stay in business. Their only other real option at this point, I think, is to block the service in that country. And all that would accomplish is limiting speech even more.

Normally it's in good form to keep your opinions to yourself when speaking about another country's policies, but in this case we are talking about a basic human right (free speech) which is an inherent right that comes from their humanity, not their government.

This brings up a whole other argument about whether Natural Rights are real. My stance is that they are not real since any 'right' is meaningless without an enforcement apparatus, i.e. a government. Things like the rights to life and free speech are only rights becuase we, as a society, say they should be.

The scary part here is that the names are being released to ordinary citizens. What if the France Copyright Group is looking for tweets like "Just d/l new ___ album 2 wks b4 store date, awesome!" and asks the name to be released?

The reason for restricted speech about certain things in the EU is that words shape thoughts, and speech communicates words. Unacceptable thoughts (those designed to spread hate and hurt other people) are things that those in charge have decided that they don't want people spreading, so they make laws that outlaw the usage of speech that is solely for propagating hatred or harming another. The same words in a different situation may not be considered hate or harmful.

In the US your speech is similarly restricted. The classic example is that your allowed to shout fire, however you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded cinema where it could cause a panic.

That restriction is nothing like this French restriction. The two are not even close.

The reason for restricted speech about certain things in the EU is that words shape thoughts, and speech communicates words. Unacceptable thoughts (those designed to spread hate and hurt other people) are things that those in charge have decided that they don't want people spreading, so they make laws that outlaw the usage of speech that is solely for propagating hatred or harming another. The same words in a different situation may not be considered hate or harmful.

The government should not be in the role of controlling thoughts. One's mind, including one's thoughts, are one's most innate and sacred possession. There is never a legitimate time to intrude on it by force of law.

Quote:

In the US your speech is similarly restricted. The classic example is that your allowed to shout fire, however you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded cinema where it could cause a panic.

This seems very much along the lines of Apple's recent European AppleCare fines. $1.4 million is a drop in the bucket with $50 billion quarterly revenue. Likewise $1300/day is probably a drop in the bucket for Twitter, even though they are a substantially smaller company than Apple. If France is really serious about hate speech, they should consider more compelling enforcent remedies. Right now, this comes across as little more than a "free speech tax".

Edit: I am not saying I support of these laws. I am just saying that enforcement is laughable. Creating a restrictive law with poor enforcement seems like a hypocritical gesture so that politicians can look proactive without actually being accountable for limiting people's rights.

Well I sure am glad that I don't live in Europe. I understand that different countries have different views on freedoms, and it's up to the people in those countries to change it if they see fit. But I can't imagine what it must be like to live in a country where you have to worry about every little thing that you say, or where one stupid comment (racist, homophobic or otherwise) could mean criminal charges against you.

Offensive speech = crime? No thank you.

oh come on ! Not once, in France, we got a huge misstep like in Britain where an angry person having his plane canceled wrote a stupid comment on twitter and got HUGE problems (for nothing).

not once. And I'm sure if one day it happens, it will be a HUGE politician and civil right shitstorm.

These people having twitted "little thing" as "a good jew is a DEAD jew" will not have their life destroyed in jail. We are speaking about France. Not North Korea, not South Virginia, not United Kingdom or Japan. France !

hate speech is not "hmm.. I'm not trusting this politician, he has ties with Israel", no. it's : "#UnBonJuif doit être cuit à point." -> "#agoodjew have to be well cooked" Do you see the difference ?

So, maybe these laws are not the best laws ever, I may agree, but it's the France here, a progressive democracy, not China. Not perfect, but pretty nice. You could live in France and do everything you want + bakery

By the way 679 of the 849 demands in 2012 by states Twitter received to give identity was from the US.

It always surprises me to hear how backwards and ignorant most of Europe is with regards to free speech.

a lot of it has to do with WW2, they see racist remarks as the possible start of another hitler.

But the real mechanism which allowed fascism--and communism and socialism, for that matter--to rise in continental Europe wasn't racism, and it certainly wasn't free speech; it was a deep fault in these societies which had never had or failed to retain the liberalizing reforms that the U.S. and U.K. had experienced. The average people were disenfranchised even where they weren't being mistreated, and felt this deeply, and they wanted someone to blame and target. The story has been repeated in countless countries all over the world; where there is no well-established individual liberty and sense of full participation in society, the people will find a scapegoat for their frustration--witches, Jews, the rich, capitalists, intellectuals, whites, blacks, it's all the same.

My favorite work about this is actually the film The White Ribbon. It tells a simple, powerful, allegorical story, and chillingly.

People often wonder why the common people in the U.S. tolerate so much income inequality, participate so little in their own democracy, etc. My answer is simple: because we have such well-established individual liberty, arguably more so and for longer than any other nation, the bulk of the people don't feel disenfranchised and don't feel the need to act out, creating a largely stable and cohesive society.

So, in my view, limiting speech is exactly the opposite of what Europe, or anyone, should be doing. It will only lead to resentment and instability in the long run, especially as heterogenization of their peoples continues. This is why when I see even the softer form of hate speech legislation, hate crime legislation, now established in the U.S., and the insanity which occurs in our schools as elsewhere regarding students suspended for making a gun gesture with their fingers and teachers fired for posting innocent photos students asked them to take, I cringe. It isn't the correct path which has kept us so stable for so long and it will end badly if not reigned in, just as the small acts in The White Ribbon snowballed into complete social instability.